Skip to main content

About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
on the economy wednesday night. but foreign policy is something that's critically important given the current state of foreign policy where we have a leader now whose foreign policy has made us weak in the eye of the rest of the world whereas governor romney believe in peace through strength. >> all right. let's talk about the expectations here, karen. the game from both sides has kicked into high gear over the weekend. i want to remind everybody. take a listen. >> president obama's a very, he's a very gifted speaker. he's an experienced debater. he's done these kinds of debates before. this is mitt's first time on this kind of a stage. >> we'd expected all along governor romney will have a good night. he's prepared more than any other candidate in history. >> and i think for us to raise the expectations, he's got to do something spectacular. those things don't happen in debates anymore that there's a spectacular event or gaffe. they're too well rehearsed. >> in this week's debate president obama has a great deal to lose. romney's is the most difficult position. obama's is the most dangerous.
in these debates and go after the president, specifically on foreign policy. governor romney hit the president on the response to the consulate attack in libya on his weekly podcast. take a listen. >> we've seen a confused, slow, and inconsistent response to the terrorist attack in libya. a refusal to be frank with the american people about what happened, and a complete failure to explain the growing terrorist threat we face in the region. >> is that the winning line of attack there? >> well, certainly going after the president on what has been one of his strengths in recent years would be one way of going big. foreign policy doesn't tend to be one of the top issues for many voters, even after 9/11, so it won't necessarily help him on the economic front. so i don't know how much it would ultimately yield him, but he's been very tough on president obama on foreign policy, hearing him say, again, something along the lines of what you just plays wouldn't surprise me a bit. >> beth fouhy, thank you so much, and anne kornblut, always a pleasure, and so much so, we'll see you a little bit later this
of the administration was to downplay the attack because they don't want any foreign policy -- nobody comes to a protest with rocket launchers so it had -- they are the markings of something more than a spontaneous protest than had gone awry. but i do think the white house is basically placing the burden of the white house on the intelligence agency and saying they were following what they were being told and they didn't really confirm that it was a terrorist attack until some days, even a week later. and i think the president, in his initial remarks at the white house did call it an act of terror, just, yeah, all the protests. >> okay. anne let's listen to a bit more here of the matter on mete the press. >> the president failed the level of the american people and called it a trift attack. because you had to be concerned about another terrorist attack in the middle east after al qaeda had been defeated. >> that's preposterous and really offensive. this presidential record on terrorism takes a back seat to no one. >> ann, is the white house at all concerned this may become an issue on the campaign trail
: this debate will be about domestic affairs. i want to ask you something about the foreign policy front. the administration has basic plea changed its account of what happened in libya, where our u.s. ambassador was killed. they said, susan rice said on this broadcast last sunday, after the president of libya said this was the work of terrorists, she said, no, this was because of a spontaneous demonstration that had to do with that film. now they have come around to saying, well, yes, it was a terrorist attack. is mitt romney making enough of this? i haven't heard too much from him on that. >> bob, what struck me-- and i have nope the director of national intelligence for years. he's a bright man. he's a competent man. this administration in effect is now saying, "oh, don't blame the united nations ambassador. don't blame the white house spokesman. don't blame the president, because our intelligence system failed so decisively." i don't know which worries me more, the idea that the intelligence system took weeks to figure out the obvious-- although we are told in fact they had informati
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)